Darryl Burghardt v. Kelly Santoro

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00960
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 DARRYL BURGHARDT, No. 2:25-cv-0960-SCR 13 Petitioner, 14 v. ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 15 KELLY SANTORO, 16 Respondent.1 17 18 Petitioner is an incarcerated person representing himself in this habeas corpus action filed 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently pending before the court is respondent’s motion to 20 dismiss the habeas petition on the basis that it is barred by the statute of limitations. ECF No. 9. 21 Having reviewed the state lodged documents which demonstrate various periods of time 22 when petitioner was mentally incompetent, the court finds it appropriate to order supplemental 23 briefing to further develop the record in this case. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1229-30 24 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that equitable tolling involves a fact-intensive inquiry). 25 Specifically, the parties are directed to address the following issues: 1) whether petitioner 26

27 1 Respondent requests that Kelly Santoro be substituted as the proper respondent in this action as the Warden of Salinas Valley State Prison where petitioner is incarcerated. See Rule 2(a) of the 28 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 1 is entitled to equitable tolling for any period of time based on his mental impairment, including 2 whether his mental illness made it impossible for him to timely file his § 2254 petition; and, 2) 3 whether petitioner’s delayed discovery of his Sacramento County conviction and sentence entitles 4 him to an alternate start date of the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D).2 See 5 Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a petitioner is entitled to equitable 6 tolling when: 1) “petitioner was unable rationally or factually to personally understand the need to 7 timely file, or petitioner’s mental state rendered him unable personally to prepare a habeas 8 petition and effectuate its filing”; and, 2) “petitioner must show diligence in pursuing the claims 9 to the extent he could understand them, but that the mental impairment made it impossible to 10 meet the filing deadline under the totality of the circumstances, including reasonably available 11 access to assistance”). With regard to equitable tolling, petitioner shall address whether his 12 “mental impairment prevented him from locating [legal] assistance or communicating with or 13 sufficiently supervising any assistance actually found.” Bills, 628 F.3d at 1101. 14 In addition to addressing these legal issues in their briefs, either party may supplement the 15 record with any exhibits they deem relevant including sworn declarations, prison mail logs, 16 mental health treatment records, or requests for law library access for the time period between 17 December 2, 2022, when petitioner was sentenced, and February 23, 2024, when petitioner 18 discovered his Sacramento County conviction had extended his release date. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Petitioner shall submit a supplemental brief on the issues identified herein within 30 21 days from the date of this order. 22 2. Respondent shall submit a supplemental brief 14 days after being served with 23 petitioner’s brief. 24 3. Petitioner may file a reply brief within 7 days of being served a copy of respondent’s 25 supplemental brief. 26

27 2 Based on this provision of the AEDPA, the one year limitations period may start on “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered 28 through the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C § 2244(d)(1)(D). ] 4. The motion to dismiss will be deemed submitted upon receipt of the supplemental 2 || briefs or the expiration of the time for filing such briefs. 3 || DATED: September 26, 2025 4

6 cnrED emis AGISMRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28